Joe Louis's record vs ranked opposition

Rocky is rated high because of unbeaten, toughness, etc, underrated skills

Ali because Ali

Louis same

Frazier because of great wins against very good op, beat Ali, toughness, etc

Holmes because solid wins, goat level longevity , no real weaknesses

Tyson because late 80s Tyson was unique, short but amazing Prime

Holyfield despite being somewhat small, warrior mentality, competitive with bigger guys, toughness, etc

Foreman, devastating puncher, several signsture wins, oldest Heavyweight champ, unique comeback story

Johnson, brilliant competition, huge influence on the sport, signature wins, longevity

Dempsey, Langford, Charles, take your pick

Wlad is not above any of those

 

Joe Louis has been completely abandoned for this Wlad discussion in 2nd half of this thread.

 

Yes, apologies

 

It's ok got no issue with it it was just surprising that's all.

 

Wlad's charisma just shines through, lol.

 

Well. so do I
Prime Mercer competes in any era
Mercer win, McCall rematch, Holyfield win and draw, early kos of briggs, golota
That was his best time

McCall ko loss was 29, Rahman loss was 35, retired at 37 because he was done.

 

Lewis has a win and a loss at the age of 35, his ‘prime’

 

All the fights you mention except for the razor close decision over Mercer came after Lewis turned 31. But before you said he was at his best before 31-32.

Make up your damned mind.

 

I said it was 31-32, sorry my post should have said earlier than *that* (35)

You can’t even get the timeframe right of when the Mcall loss was, at least get your facts correct.
Lewis had a ko loss and a decision win at 35, some prime that isn’t it?

 

Who are you taking out of a top ten to make room for Wlad , where is he in yours

 

What are you on about? I said that the McCall loss was before he was 31-32 and it was.

And where did I say his prime was at 35? What I've said is that it clealrly wasn't before 31-32 as you said.

This is the third and fourth time you outright lie about what I said. In one thread. You are an absolute waste of time and go on my ignore.

EDIT: As for Lewis being in his prime at 35, that isn't something I've said so don't know why you bring it up in a reply to me.

But that doesn't mean I disagree with it necessarly. I can see why one would feel that the Lewis who starched Rahman was prime, at the very least still close to it. That was some KO.

 

There’s some confusion here, sorry, it was another poster said Lewis was prime at 35.
And you thought I meant Lewis was prime before 31-32, when you mentioned McCall? I think that’s what’s happened

 

Not much more to say about Louis tbf. Only Ali rivals him for wins over ranked opp, and no one rivals him for wins over nr 1 or title defences.

His dominance is arguably not only the greatest at HW, but in any weight class.

 

Still usually when it comes to Joe Louis we still never run out of discussion.

 

I didn't need to see Holmes rematch them to observe the quality of Weaver and Witherspoon. I just needed to watch the matches they actually did fight.

That's not answering the question, is it?

You stated: "Norton had clearly slipped..."

Which means, Norton's age notwithstanding, you saw something that indicated his having slipped. What was it that you observed?

I've already acknowledged this. But I still think Cooney's ledger is better than Haye's.

What do you think?


In any event, the Cooney that faced Holmes probably breaks Byrd in half and disposes of the rest of Wlad's so-called top-tier opposition - save for MAYBE Povetkin in a fair fight, i.e., one in which Cooney isn't hanging off Povetkin's neck and trying to piggy-hump him for the majority of the bout.

That said, I still favor Cooney to take Pov.

You don't think Byrd being a LHW on a high-carb diet is a salient factor?

OK.

But he didn't really, at any point, grow into a proper heavyweight, did he?
He just carried that layer of fat that shrouded any muscle definition.

A sure sign that the division had gone to hell, post-Lewis.

If the drubbing Byrd received from Wlad in 2000 wasn't enough, we had to watch an abridged version of the one-way flogging again - This time, with 'well-past-it' Byrd, six years later.

And that is Wlad's best win.

As an aside, when Byrd faced Wlad for the second time, he was older than the Norton who faced Holmes.

You're invoking name-only value again. Do you think the 'W' Byrd picked up from Vitali represented a quality win, really?

Byrd avoiding being knocked out by Tua was a good idea, making it a fair win, but it only really confirmed a lot of what was already known and said more about Tua. That is, Tua was regularly out-boxed by even modest competition, but had had the power to dig himself out of trouble in the past - even after the bell had rung (Just ask Rahman - Tua's best win - achieved on a foul).

Tua is massively overrated, but fair play to Byrd for a smart game-plan against a low ring IQ.

It wasn't just ugly. It was a foul-ridden shitshow and should have been a DQ win for Povetkin.

Just the attempt you make here at one-upmanship, comparing Wlad/Povetkin with Norton/Holmes and Holmes/Witherspoon is bizarre and lacks perspective.

Given that we know he didn't fight the universally recognized #1 for long periods of his tenure, we can safely say that the above is overstatement.

Additionally, were Byrd (II), Sam Peter (II), Chagaev, and 'Pinky-Toe' Haye, really at their best?

All-told, I'd wager that Holmes beat more top-3 contenders than did Wlad. And, what possible case could there be against Norton not being considered the "nr 1" when Holmes fought him?